Bailiff Discussion II (moved from other thread)

[Guest MizzPiggy]

You can't have a different opinion without objection, to which objection is constructive if both are allowed a view.

[PriorityOne]

Phew ! That was a long rant Watchdog ! There a loads of people out there who hate the bailiff industry, including myself. However, there are also those who try and present a balanced point of view and get shot down for it. Who are you to decide who is a bailiff and who is not just because they try and present both sides ?

 

I am not a bailiff, but I have been in debt and still owe money which is being collected on. I know how the system has worked for me in the past and it is NOT always how it is painted by you or your company.

[demon_x_slash]

The thing is, blfuk1, you keep saying 'bailiffs' as if you're talking about the majority. You may be a nice one, fair and reasonable, who turns up between 9am-5pm, doesn't stick hir toe in the door, and doesn't attempt to levy on goods like washing machines. Most of them - bailiffs, debt collectors, 'enforcement agents' - are not. As evidenced by the stories on this forum. It's all very well saying, 'Well, this is the law and this is all we do' - I have yet to see proof from the overwhelming threads on this forum that this is the case in reality.

[demon_x_slash]

Agreed, debating and questioning is the only way we can learn from both sides. To reiterate, blfuk1, I'm sure you're a nice, honest bailiff. There must be some out there, if only by the law of averages.

[blfuk1]

Agreed, debating and questioning is the only way we can learn from both sides. To reiterate, blfuk1, I'm sure you're a nice, honest bailiff. There must be some out there, if only by the law of averages.

 

Here something of interest which you can take or leave.

 

The majority of bailiffs firms act in a responsible and proper manner.

 

However, the majority of bailiff firms do not necessarily deal with the majority or work issued to bailiffs.

 

Take magistrates' court fines. For 25 years up to April 2006, the work issued by the courts was undertaken by around 100 firms accross the country. From April 2006, the Government awarded all the work to just three bailiff companies and also awarded them all the income tax work too.

 

This work amounts to around 20% of all work undertaken by bailiffs. I'm sure if you examined the parking penalty and council tax markets there would be a similar position of the majority of work being undertaken by a small number of very large firms.

 

Like I said, the majority of bailiff firms act in a responsible and proper manner.

[Guest MizzPiggy]

At last something we both agree on.

 

Not all Bailiff Companies or Bailiffs are people that those of who come here have had encounters with.

 

Our service alone has spoken and dealt with very reasonable and decent bailiffs and companies to which are the smaller firms that are out there. The larger firms present the problems as they are not focused on what is happening out there and what we believe, are very ignorant of what their Bailiffs do and the way in which they behave, which discredits them.

 

Many Bailiffs are thoughtful and do collect on people in a fair manner, many times we are emailed stories of this to which we do often place on our site in the news section showing that there is a different side.

 

It is harder in our role to be open in opinion, as we deal direct with the public that have been affected. While we try to maintain an open opinion, when we have an outraged member of the public that has just had their car taken wrongly, with wrong paperwork and extortianate costs that are not valid, then please tell us how we tell that person to have an open mind and that not all bailiffs are bad.

 

Bailiff UK is honest and open with his posts, however my only issue is that of not seeing that the people that post here and those that seek information, are usually the ones that have had an issue and are agrieved. If Bailiff UK would kindly, as a request, keep posting of things that are and can be questioned in relation to behaviours then that is fair and many of his posts do. My concern is that he feels the need to defend every Bailiffs behaviour, when in fact it is not obviously HIS behaviour that is in question, but those of his Industry.

 

I don't doubt there are good Companies as are there good bailiffs. We don't judge either way till it is prevelant that a Bailiff or their Company have acted in a manner that is wrong. However Bailiff UK, you must admit, that Bailiff and the laws that surround your abilities rights and charges, are somewhat interpreted differently from Bailiff to Bailiff and company to company.? Would you not say that some believe they have more powers than others?

 

Both views are required to be balanced, however our issue is that the person being collected upon, often is not given a fair view or understanding till after they have been taken advantage of. Having two sets of guidelines and laws that surround warrants is also an issue and confusing to the public for knowledge of rights.

 

Please don't condemn us, we do work from the other side Bailiff UK, and our role as difficult as yours to collect.

 

Alison

[Bailiffchaser]

That includes ccs enforcement services and also includes drakes ? The whistleblower programme sept on bbc ? Yeah right.

[JedPM]

i had a run in with drakes and although my car is under an HP agreement, they stated they could still seize the car as they could have an arrangement with the HP company who would settle the debt but u would still have to settle ur outstanding HP debt!! Having spoken to my HP company they informed me that drakes sometimes took the car and kept it!!!! i forked out over £600 to the baliff for a unpaid speeding fine. oh how i wish i had spotted this website earlier:(

[PriorityOne]

In my experience, debt collection agencies have always tried to use scare tactics in attempting to get me to cough up more money. These conversations have usually been quite amusing to me and they have yet to succeed in collecting anything above the original agreement. However, I have also had conversations with people in both industries that have been very agreeable, so it is important to try and present a balanced view. It's pretty much the same in most areas of life.

 

The fact that the bailiff industry has been allowed to flourish unchallenged for so long however, is highly political; the working class or/and the vulnerable poor have always been a much easier target to pursue, due to ease of intimidation, not knowing how the system works, not having contacts in high places and of course, financial clout. In other words, they are more easily scared by consequences that they think are going to happen if they do not comply with those they see as being more powerful.

 

Historically, when has the government ever been that bothered by the plight of the working classes without a political motive ? Bailiffs collect on middle class interests and these are what continue to be protected by governments. Even the interests of the Lloyds Names were protected back in the early 1990s because the little darlings made a mistake on the markets. To my knowledge, no bailiffs went after them and there were huge sums of money involved ! Anyone remember that one or am I the only fossil on here (laughing)

 

There is a long way to go, but we have strength in numbers. You only have to look at the Poll Tax fiasco and the eventual downfall of Thatcher.

[TUTTSI]

My case was under a HP Credit agreement.

I believe the OFT site has what a Bailiff can or cannot do - but in the real world Bailiffs will break the law. If you are not aware of YOUR rights at exactly that moment when they are there, it is too late late. This is speaking from personal experience. Then the Bailiff will lie there way out of it. For instance when they came for my car they arrived at 6:40am in the morning. According to the OFT they are not allowed to come at this time or late at night so when I complained they said it was 8:30am which was a total lie. They also took my car from a private drive which according to the Consumer Credit Act ( clause I cannot remember now) they are not allowed to do so. They can only take a car from the public highway. They had already entered the drive there tow truck was hooked up to my car, the car was clamped and when I was awoken by the comotion going on the Bailiff said he was going to smash the window of the car to break in and I would be responsible for the damage. I was terrified as he looked a real rougue and just handed him the keys. MY MISTAKE, because afterwards he denied that he was on my drive with his tow truck, denied that he had clamped my car and denied the time he arrived and also denied that he threatened to smash the window. His story was a fairy story and I could not prove a thing. VW and the Bailiffs had everything to loose if I had won and the simplest thing for them to do was to lie their way through. So on this occasion neither were not punished for this crime which was also under the theft act. If there had been a site like this some 4 years ago I would never have let it happen. I was green then but hey much more streetwise now. If by me telling my story perhaps others will know what to do and not to allow this to happen again. After all who knew 6 years ago about the Bank Charges being unlawfull.

Regards

DS

[Guest MizzPiggy]

Don't lose hope!

This site is great for those seeking answers, however often it is read that people give up and lose heart. I myself have at times when up against such a harsh system. However, what we say is, don't give up!

 

We had a case come into the office two weeks ago. The man had lost his car and the finance company bought it back off the Bailiff Company for hundreds less than he was given the opportunity to pay!

 

After going through 154 documents relating to the case and investigating and scrutinising every document, we found the case can be won.The Bailiff 2 years ago, was not certificated! He was when the car was taken, however for all four visits and fees that were incurred prior to that together with him actually having paid the debt during this time, no further fees or visits by this bailiff warranted charges that can be placed against the debt as he shouldn't have been collecting at the start!

 

We are in court in feb! So don't give up. We have so many old cases and new that come through that there is at times, through documents that seem to back up what is "legal" not, to which you can go back and claim damages.

 

There is a fantastic case in court tomorrow, to which if it goes through, will be a ruling about cars on HP as a judge delayed a decision a week ago monday ruling on the decision. Fingers crossed this goes the way we hope. People are becoming more away and the Industry knows this and finding it harder. We are winning, even if just a little.

Alison

[blfuk1]

While he quotes facts etc, as was stated by nightrider, a copy of the warrant was left, so is Bailiff UK always right?

 

As for his comment about the bailiff i there to sieze goods. Really:? Or is it that he is their to gain payment for monies owed and sieze goods if this is not possible. Please....do not again advise people of all these so called rights that a Bailiff has that he in fact does not.

 

It tires me to keep arguing with Bailiffs on this point. You are there to gain payment not take and as the warrant states clearly, to collect on monies owed to the state or to take goods and chattels. There is not a wording that says just take. So your advice is incorrect.

 

ALison

 

From what Nightrider wrote, I don't think it was a copy warrant, just a bailiff generated form. Easy to check. A warrant issued by the court (the document itself) will be signed by the Area Director for the HMCS Area from which it was issued or by the Justices Clerk.

 

It will be directed to 'Drakes' and state, "You Drakes are hereby required immediately to make distress of the money and goods of the defaulter...." If it does not have this or almost identical wording, it is not a copy of the WARRANT but another form. As I said, there are no prescribed forms for execution of a magistrates' courts warrant, so what was left was probably a stock Notice from Drakes.

 

On the second point I have extracted, you will see from the wording of a typical magistrates' warrant that the bailiff is directed to make a seizure not a collection of money. The first part mentions money but only in the context of seizing money. Bailiffs exist and have done for 1,000 years, to enable the seizure of goods from people who would not pay with money! That's why they have the specific authority to enter premises and seize goods. They can also seize money and if a 'debtor' wishes to pay what is due including the cost of the seizure (of goods/money), then that will stop the process of distress or execution.

 

I have no idea why you wish to keep arguing the point about the objective of bailiffs when it is more than obvious that it is to seize goods otherwise why would that authority (to SEIZE GOODS) be vested in them?

 

I think this is useful (and correct) advice to impart to people about to be on the receiving end of a bailiff's visit as it will ensure they know what to expect. If such advice was not forthcoming, they might think they were facing a debt collector and that having no money will stop the process. Of course, it won't because a bailiff is there to seize goods not collect payment. It does not bother a bailiff if you don't have the money/cash to pay because he is there to seize your goods!!!!!

 

If you can't get this point then I'll give up trying to explain!

 

Better still, why not read some of John Kruse's works. In particular, try The Law of Seizure of Goods: Debtors' Rights and Remedies which he wrote to assist debtors and their advisors!

 

Within that you will find numerous references to a bailiff's primary objective. For example, "Statutory distraint is a power to seize goods granted under a particular statute". (It's not a power to go and request payment!!)

 

Anyway, look for yourself.

[Guest MizzPiggy]

You can't have a different opinion without objection, to which objection is constructive if both are allowed a view.

[Guest MizzPiggy]

You can't have a different opinion without objection, to which objection is constructive if both are allowed a view.

[PriorityOne]

I have also known of one person who, when the bailiff discovered that she did not have cash for the debt he was collecting, advised her on the best course of action... and left with nothing ! I suppose it sometimes just depends on the kind of bailiff you get, although I must stress, that is the ONLY time I have heard of this happening.

[PriorityOne]

From reading this thread, there also seems to be a lot of "books" on this subject, but which one is right ? Does an interpretation depend on the type of bailiff or does a rogue bailiff simple decide which particular law he wants to follow - including his own sometimes ?

 

Bailiff law is still a very grey area.

[blfuk1]

Dear Bailiff UK,

 

WILSON v SOUTH KESTEVEN DISTRICT COUNCIL (2000) Would be a case that strongly disputes what you have written.

 

A debtor that tried to make payment through the course of levying to which the Bailiff refused and it was upheld in court of appeal due to the following:

 

On a second visit, during which the bailiff proceeded to remove W's goods from the premises, W tendered £3,500 in cash. The bailiff declined to accept this sum, stating that the amount of the accrued and accruing charges was such that that sum, even taking into account an earlier payment of £200, by W, was insufficient to discharge the total amount then outstanding. The bailiff was unable, however, to give W an exact figure as to the amount which she would need to pay. The judge held that the bailiff ought to have had with him an up-to-date calculation, in the form of a memorandum which complied with reg.14(5) of the Regulations, so that W could have "bought off" the distress and avoided the removal of her goods. He held that the bailiff's failure to do so rendered the distress unlawful, given his finding that the amount due could not reasonably have exceeded £3,700.

 

This clearly disputes the arguement.

 

It is on our site. A Bailiff must give an opportunity for payment before the levy of removal of goods.

 

Alison

 

What on earth are you on about?

 

The Wilson case simply confirmed that bailiffs do not have to accept payment during removal as they are unable to establish how much would be due until the process was complete.

 

Lord Justice Simon Brown confirmed that under Regulation 14 of the Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations that there are only two points that a debtor can halt the distraint process. The first is before goods are seized and the second is after they have been removed and prior to disposal.

 

The case confirmed that it is not obligatory for bailiffs to allow a debtor to discharge liability by making payment during the process of removal.

 

What exactly is - the levy of removal of goods???

[Guest MizzPiggy]

You can't have a different opinion without objection, to which objection is constructive if both are allowed a view.

[blfuk1]

P.S Bailiff UK -

 

John KRUSE's book is my bible. So is access to Lawtel and various other sites for information and law access libraries.

 

So please, do not make out we don't know our job....we do...we just know it from the other side.

 

One final point. There is a difference between a Magistrates Court Bailiff employed by HMCS, and that of a Bailiff that has been granted to work for the Court under a Private Agency. Statutory Instrument 2000 No 3279.

 

Have a good week and I am sure you will be back to try and prove the law wrong again even though it is in statute. I look forward to your reply.

 

Alison

 

There you go again..... quoting total rubbish. If you're going to rely on quoting statute then at least get the statute right!

 

Statutory Instrument 3279 of 2000 was repealed under the Courts Act 2003 (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Order 2005 (SI2005 / 1012)). It no longer exists!!!!!!!

 

For future reference you should be aware that Enforcement Agents/Agencies (bailiffs) are engaged under Section 2(4) of the 2003 Courts Act which enables the Lord Chancellor to, "enter into such contracts with other persons for the provision, by them or their subcontractors, of officers, staff or services as appear to him appropriate for the purpose of discharging his general duty in relation to the courts."

 

The magistrates' courts, under Her Majesty's Courts Service, do not employ bailiffs - they employ their own civilian enforcement officers (CEOs or 'warrant officers') to execute warrants of arrest. All distress warrants (and some arrest warrants) are dealt with by contractors (bailiffs) contracted for HMCS by the Department for Constitutional Affairs under the terms of the 2003 Act.

 

How can there be a difference between two types of bailiffs as you appear to think there are, when there is only one type - according to STATUTE?

[blfuk1]

Do you not get the Point???

 

You said -

"On the second point I have extracted, you will see from the wording of a typical magistrates' warrant that the bailiff is directed to make a seizure not a collection of money."

 

I only placed half the ruling - the point I was trying to make was that a debtor has a right to make payment before seizure to which with your wording, seizure is your only instruction.

 

TO which I corrected you with the ruling. Magistrates Court ruling.

 

Appeal by the rating authority ('the council') from the judgment of HH Judge Julian Hall, who found the council liable to respondent ('W') for damages to be assessed for unlawful distress arising out of the seizure of W's goods by bailiffs acting pursuant to a liability order for unpaid non-domestic rates. The liability order was in the sum of £3,266.25 plus £16 for court costs. Pursuant to reg.14 Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1989 ('the Regulations') additional charges were permitted to be added to the amount to be paid by the debtor in the event of distress being effected upon the debtor's goods. In the instant case the council instructed a bailiff to levy distress upon W's goods. On a first visit to W's premises, the bailiff seized, but did not remove, W's goods. The bailiff left with W a memorandum, as required by reg.14(5) of the Regulations setting out the amount then due by way of unpaid rates, court costs and accrued charges to date. On a second visit, during which the bailiff proceeded to remove W's goods from the premises, W tendered £3,500 in cash. The bailiff declined to accept this sum, stating that the amount of the accrued and accruing charges was such that that sum, even taking into account an earlier payment of £200, by W, was insufficient to discharge the total amount then outstanding. The bailiff was unable, however, to give W an exact figure as to the amount which she would need to pay. The judge held that the bailiff ought to have had with him an up-to-date calculation, in the form of a memorandum which complied with reg.14(5) of the Regulations, so that W could have "bought off" the distress and avoided the removal of her goods. He held that the bailiff's failure to do so rendered the distress unlawful, given his finding that the amount due could not reasonably have exceeded £3,700.

 

HELD: The case had proceeded on the mistaken assumption that a debtor had a right to halt the distraint process at any time by an appropriate payment or tender at any time. In fact, it was clear from the specific wording of reg.14(3) and reg.14(4) of the Regulations that, so far from having a continuous opportunity to end the process, the opportunity only arose: (i) before any goods were seized (reg.14(3)); and (ii) after seizure and before sale (reg.14(4)). There was no opportunity to redeem the goods during the period of seizure itself. This was by no means unfair to the debtor, since at the time of actual seizure it would invariably be difficult to say precisely what was the amount due, given that charges would be accruing almost by the minute.

 

My point was that before goods are seized, settlement of the debt is lawfully allowed. To which you had stated...

a typical magistrates' warrant that the bailiff is directed to make a seizure not a collection of money.

 

As I said, I beg to differ on that one.

 

Alison

 

Again, you do not get the point. I have never said debtors cannot pay the bailiff. What I have said and which is perfectly true is that bailiffs attend with a prime objective to seize goods. If a debtor wishes to pay to halt the process of seizure, he can. Either before goods are seized (removed) or after!!!!!

[Guest MizzPiggy]

You can't have a different opinion without objection, to which objection is constructive if both are allowed a view.

[blfuk1]

You are so typical Bailiff. You will argue your point which ever way you can so you are right. You will pick on any small discrepancy to hold control.

 

Alison - it's hardly a small discrepancy when you quote a repealed law and two 'types' of bailiffs when only one type exists!

 

Bailiff law is complex and I don't see you out there writing a book like John to help anyone understand.

 

Yes it's very complex and my reason for posting on this site has been to try and make matters clearer to ASSIST people with accurate information on what bailiffs can and can't do. If you read my posts you will see, for example, they contain advice on obtaining detailed information to argue against excessive bailiff fees. They also advise people when the bailiff, as I see it, is right and the person posting is in a no win situation because the bailiff action is legitimate, according to law. My position is as objective as possible based on law not opinion of what's right or wrong morally.

 

Your need for control in this conversation and to try and discredit me I don't need. I don't come here to argue with you. I come here like you to give the other side...the other side of what you tell them....with the best of information we are given and understand to pass on.

 

Alison, I'm not trying to control the conversation but I believe the information I am posting is more accurate. I think some of your posts have been dangerously misleading by advising people on how to deal with a situation using inappropriate legislative arguments. That will get them nowhere.

 

I am not trying to discredit you but anyone who posts inaccurate information and also claims to know the legislative minefield that bailiff law is when clearly they don't, is on a hiding to nothing.

 

Confucius say: Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.

[Guest MizzPiggy]

Confucius say....

Confucius say, man who shoot off mouth, must expect to lose face

[blfuk1]

Misleading or annoying because they are not agreeing with you?

 

When we have the OFT and various other organisations that agree with what is on our site...are they all wrong?

 

Confucius say....

Confucius say, man who shoot off mouth, must expect to lose face

 

Actually, misleading, because they are misleading!

 

It seems that everytime you respond you go off at a tangent, possibly because you cannot justify errors in your previous post.

 

You now seem to be suggesting that all information on your site is endorsed by the Office of Fair Trading, when earlier you were insisting that bailiffs executing court warrants and orders need a consumer credit licence. You ought to publish the OFT's response to that particular issue on site so members will know whether to complain (or not) when a bailiff doesn't have one. I recall you actually warned me that I was on dangerous ground (or suchlike) for suggesting bailiffs don't have to have a consumer credit licence.

 

Either stick to the point in question , or don't bother!

 

A truth that disheartens because it is true is of more value than the most stimulating of falsehoods.

[Guest MizzPiggy]

Grow up Bailiff UK.

 

When that conversation was had you know full well it was relating to Road Traffic Debts and the companies that collect on them.

 

You twist things and this arguement is over. According to you now Bailiff Companies do not need Credit licences. I never stated Bailiffs did, I did mean the companies they work for to which you knew.

 

You are always right sir, your a Bailiff. Apologies. I will bow out gracefully and leave you to be the advisor and mentor of the site with all the answers everyone seeks.

 

I will remove my other posts as you have so kindly copied them and manipulated them accordingly and not taken the whole of what has been written. As I said, have your last word. This isn't even constructive anymore.

 

As for the statement of the OFT, again twisted. As I stated in my PM to you, its not what you say its how you say it. You do yourself no favours to rubbish others, but to support them and further their knowledge with kindness when taught, is a choice of a wiser man.

 

Take care,

 

Alison

 

Epictetus

Men are disturbed not by things, but by the view which they take of them.